10 July 2007 4:04 PM

If MMR is safe, why persecute its critics?

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

How would you expect a totalitarian dictatorship to arrive in a country which had been free for centuries? Well, exactly as it is doing, by slow, relentless salami-slicing of important freedoms. This process is made even worse and more repellent by the way in which people are persuaded, through fear, to support their own subjugation.

People seem to think that putsches will involve obvious, crude things - the tanks on the streets, the martial music on the radio, the loudspeaker announcements urging us to go quietly to our homes and observe the curfew, while the mass-arrest squads do their work.

We all know, or think we know, how we would behave under such conditions - rally to the resistance, refuse to be cowed, demonstrate in the streets and squares of our cities. Don't we?

Who knows? The problem with being free is that you get so used to it that you think it is the natural state of affairs, rather than a highly unnatural and unusual one, which can only be preserved by a huge amount of stroppy vigilance. So in fact wholly free people, such as the British have been for so long, are terrifyingly bad at standing up for rights which they cannot believe are threatened. People in horrible despotisms, on the other hand, often demonstrate what appears to be mad courage, inevitably ending in imprisonment, torture and death - because freedom for them is a beautiful idea, remote and perhaps impossible, but worth dying for.

What does this have to do with the Mumps, Measles and Rubella injection? More than I thought it did. Long ago, when I first began to write about the MMR controversy, I simply hadn't made up my mind about whether the injection was dangerous. Nearly seven years later, I still have no idea. And I have never, and would never, urge any parents to refuse to have their child injected with it, especially if they have studied the facts seriously and are happy about it. I haven't the medical knowledge. It would be irresponsible for me to do so.

My concern is with those who are troubled. Firstly, I am disturbed by the official persecution of those like Dr Andrew Wakefield who are nagged by a suspicion that there might be a connection between MMR and various quite serious childhood problems. Dr Wakefield might be wrong, and has never claimed certainty, but if by any chance he is right then this is a very grave matter, about which he was surely entitled, and in fact obliged, to make his concerns public.

Next, I am disturbed by the way in which the state turns a hard face towards those parents who choose not to have the MMR injection for their young. They are pestered with propaganda and badgered with scare stories about measles. If, despite being taxpayers whose stake in the NHS is as great as anyone else's, they ask for single injections instead of a joint jab, they are brusquely refused. There is no practical excuse for this. It would cost very little to do. It is the state telling them that their wishes must be subject to the will of power, like it or lump it.

Then I am unsettled by the authorities' resort to alarmist propaganda. In very rare instances, measles can lead to disastrous complications. In poor countries, where children are hungry and there is no clean water, it can easily be fatal. But in advanced civilisations such as ours, where hunger is extremely rare and clean sanitation universal, it isn't actually a big threat.

Yet the MMR lobby pretend that it is. They highlight very rare cases of deaths from measles - notably in a Dublin epidemic which actually followed the introduction of MMR there.

I traced, with some difficulty, the details of the Dublin deaths. One did involve a severely malnourished child, a shocking thing in a European capital at the end of the 20th century. The other involved a child with a severely malformed gullet and windpipe. What also emerged from my inquiries was the large number of children who caught measles despite having had the MMR, which suggests that its effectiveness is not as high as its supporters would like to think. In a more recent case of death by measles in Britain, the authorities flatly refused to give me any details of the case, hiding behind the usual unconvincing excuses of confidentiality - meaningless given that I did not seek the name of the child.

I also wrote in the Mail on Sunday about the curious fake letters, from mothers alleging that my supposed anti-MMR propaganda had led them to refuse to vaccinate their children, who had then been terribly ill and had almost died. These letters followed my attempts to get Gordon Brown and Anthony Blair to say if their sons had been vaccinated. I pointed out that these letters were unsigned, had illegible scrawls for signatures, or had incomplete addresses. And I then received a letter which was legibly signed, and appeared to come from a complete address. The letter was highly professional, beautifully word-processed, and wholly fraudulent.

The name of the person who signed it was stolen from a real woman. She, when I traced her, affirmed that she had not written it and that her children were in Africa, had grown up years ago, and had never suffered from measles. The address, which appeared to be genuine, was in fact a clever fake. The occupant of the flat which shared the postcode and number of the fake address had no knowledge of the letter. Had I not gone myself to the address, I would never have discovered these rather creepy facts.

So we have propaganda, state pressure on individuals, censorship, and the persecution of dissenters, plus the employment of untraceable, sinister and underhand methods against press critics. But imagine how much worse these things would be without the restraints on power imposed by the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, the freedom of the police from government pressure, the independence of parliament, the inability of the authorities to lock people up without trial, and a free press. And then examine the way in which all of these things are being undermined by government. How long will it be before parents can be forced to allow their children to be given jabs they object to? Unthinkable abuse of power? If only . Interestingly, in one case where an estranged mother and father disagreed about the MMR, a judge outrageously ordered that the child be immunised.

Now, why the rage against Andrew Wakefield who, on July 16th, faces a hearing before the General Medical Council( and the parallel rage against the admirable Angela Mason, the former teacher who went back to work with a hidden camera, to record the tragic disorder in state-school classrooms, and was censured by the atrocious 'General Teaching Council')?

I think it is a straightforward matter of the overmighty establishment (for the GMC is ostensibly independent) taking vengeance on someone who got in its way. In Sunday's 'Observer', we learned that two leading Cambridge academics privately suspect that MMR may be a factor in the development of Autism in a small number of children.

The official government line is that MMR is proved to be entirely safe. I have never been quite sure how anyone could claim such a thing, even on a much sounder research basis than the one the government uses. You would, in effect, have to prove a negative, which is notoriously impossible. But the 'Observer' report quotes an MMR supporter, Vivienne Parry, as saying a very interesting thing. "There's a small risk with all vaccines. No-one has ever said that any vaccine is completely without side effects. But we have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. If we had measles, it would kill lots of children. If you have a vaccine, it will damage some children, but a very small number."

Ms Parry should be praised for her candour, a good clear summary of the view of the benevolent state. I suspect the government shares her view but hasn't had the nerve to say so.

But, apart from the fact that the dangers of measles have been greatly overstated, her remark raises the question of who comes first, the individual or a theoretical common good. Taken to its limits, the idea that some individuals must be sacrificed, or 'damaged' for the general benefit is a totalitarian one. But most of us don't mind it much because we don't imagine that we will be the ones required to make the sacrifice. That is why there need to be powerful safeguards able to withstand fashion and public opinion. And that is why Dr Wakefield, and people like him, need to be able to voice their doubts without facing the danger of serious censure by bodies such as the General Medical Council.

Put yourself in the position of Heather Edwards, who got in touch with me after a hospital mix-up caused the loss of valuable tissue samples from her small son Josh. I have written elsewhere about that side of the case. Josh developed serious bowel problems and regressive autism after his first MMR jab. Assured that there was no connection between the jab and the symptoms, on the reasonable grounds that because B happens after A, it does not mean that B is caused by A, Mrs Edwards gave permission for Josh to have his second MMR after the usual interval. The immunisation was given. His symptoms soon afterwards grew much, much worse.

Once could be dismissed as coincidence. But twice? It seems possible to me that Josh may be one of the small but significant number of children who react badly to the MMR. What if this is so? Are you happy for them to be sacrificed for the greater good? For Heather and for Josh, this is not just some distant essay topic. It is a miserable daily fact of life. Josh is now missing much of his bowel, as well as being deeply autistic. Doctors offer little hope or comfort of any kind, there is no real treatment or surgery which can make him better, and the task of caring for him, at home, is gruelling and dispiriting in the extreme. The physical details of his daily life - and that of his family - are frightful and appalling, and would drive most people mad with despair. Heather is tougher than that, but you will hardly be surprised to learn that she is an indomitable supporter of Dr Wakefield, and views his cause as hers.

If she and her son have had to make a sacrifice for the common good, or even if it is possible, then the very least that we can do is to make sure that she receives proper support and care for her son. Personally, I think the government needs to abandon its bullying tone and recognise that those who fear the MMR has damaged or will damage their children should at least be treated with courtesy and respect.

But I see no sign of it. And this brings me to my final point. I have visited a lot of tyrannies. And the thing I notice about them is not so much the obvious deadness of press and TV, the fear of speaking out of turn among intellectuals and journalists. These are bad, but in truth they affect very few people. What I notice is that in tyrannies, the poor and weak are utterly at the mercy of power. And this is the sort of society we are becoming.

Just to put the record straight for Rick Simpson, the MMR vaccine does not contain mercury, and never has contained mercury. Therefore no dormant genes have been made dominant and triggered autism by injections of mercury 'on behalf of the state'. I'm sorry that your sons are autistic, but the truth is that there is an absolute mountain of scientific study that shows no link between autism and the MMR vaccine. The Andrew Wakefield case has been seized by the media and whipped up into a froth of scaremongering, pseudoscientific drivel that vulnerable people have grasped at in an (understandable) attempt to find a reason for their children's affliction.

I think we are all being hoodwinked by the big pharmaceuticals out to make their money off us! Why doesn't the government learn that they can't lie to us all the time, we aren't that stupid! It is obvious that it isn't natural to have so many viruses pumped into little babies, it can't be good for them. My gran says she had all of those diseases, and she was fine. Mr Hitchings is making a valuable point, the debate shouldn't be stifled!

My friend was born partially blind because of all those healthy little unvaccinated kiddies yomping around with rubella. Jolly good; keep up the good work, after all it's "unnatural" to be vaccinated, isn't it?

Do I get the logic right: there aren't many deaths from measles, mumps and rubella in the UK, therefore the risk is low, so you don't need to be vaccinated.
Am I an idiot, or is the reason the levels of measles, mumps and rubella are low is because we are mostly vaccinated? If everyone stops getting vaccinated, surely the levels will rise lots and lots, which will lead to increased risks from these diseases?

To point it out again: the GMC isn't putting Dr. Wakefield on trial becuase he suggests there is a link between MMR and autism: they are investigating because (amongst other dodgy dealings) he put his own interests above those of the children he was studying, making them undergo painful and invasive examinations they didn't need. If my doctor did this to my child, I'd bloody well want him hauled over the coals.

I am a Ph.D. student in Microbiology. In a couple of months, through no fault of my own my name will appear on an article in a mid level microbiology journal. Most of the article is rubbish, it proceeds from badly designed lab work to faulty assumptions. My supervisor has a tendency to design experiments with one right answer, then put graduate students to work on them. Sometimes his insights are correct and everyone wins, sometimes either the experimental design or the scientific assumptions that underlie the experiment are faulty. In these cases the students are in a difficult position.

When I have discussed my particular publication with more senior scientists I have been told , word for word, “Become a professor, then you can argue with professors” The head of my research school just ignored my comments, I was lucky, if he had reported them I would be in serious trouble.

You might argue that I am overgeneralizing from personal experience. I would ask you to consider two points though:

-Academia has become more competitive-scientists are asked to publish more and more to have any chance of a career. If you make things more competitive, without also increasing surveillance for misconduct, it is inevitable that more scientists will game the system the bolder ones through outright fraud, the more timid through salami publishing or designing experiments with considerable moral hazard (as above). With enough time and competition academic misconduct will not just occur but become essential for any chance of career progress.

-Look at the cases where scientific fraud has been exposed. In most cases this is because scientists made extraordinary discoveries that ought to have been reproducible. You could argue that this because people who commit fraud are naturally reckless, or that a lot of fraud that is low risk/low payoff (i.e. supports mainstream thinking) is never detected.

While it is easy to down play the risks of measles (yes, complications are rare), a few years ago I acted as a sighted guide on a holiday for young blind people. On one day, all three of the young men I was assisting claimed to have been born with sight, but to have become blind through measles. Yes, complications are rare, but when they arise they can be very serious indeed.

Mike Williamson, you rightly criticise the use of scientific research when the sample size is small and, the research in question is being used to try to prove something that has already been decided. This is precisely what Andrew Wakefield did. The original research contained just 12 children (a study in 2001 looked at 357 children and found no such evidence). He alsoe failed to disclose
1) That the parents of these children were attempting to sue the makers of the vaccine
2) That he was involved in the production of a single jab.
Wakefield clearly displays a serious conflict of interest. This also seems supported by his decision to perform potentially devastating procedures such as lumbar punctures on children for the benefit of his research, without the approval of an ethics committee, and paying children for blood samples without informed consent.
And yet, any scientists or doctors backing the GMC's view are dismissed as being part of a conspiracy, in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies or controlled by the government. There is a clear double standard here.

Circumstantial evidence is not the same as evidence. However, Wakefield is not being punished for speaking out against the medical establishment. It is the serious professional misconduct, acting against the interests of the children in his research, that the GMC are interested in.

In answer to 'Pat'. I worked in a university biomedical research department for 4.5 years and then spent 8 years in science publishing dealing with research scientists on a daily basis. What is your own experience?

"But, as per the Global Warming (non) Debate Scientists increasingly have to provide the right answer in order to get state funding, at which point any sensible questioning is closed down and non conformists are labelled as flat earthers."

No. The most common hypotheses of global warming deniers - like the hypothesis that MMR causes autism - have been rigorously tested and found wanting. The proponents of these hypotheses then resort to misrepresenting the evidence to fit their own concerns - a la "The Great Global Warming Swindle" swindle, where Martin Durkin and his team faked graphs and misrepresented the views of interviewees.

There is no conspiracy to silence brave speakers of truth. These people are simply wrong, but for whatever reason refuse to accept that.

I agree with Peter - it's the slow and increasing suppression of those who dare to speak out that is being carried out in the name of 'science' or 'public welfare'. This is exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930's and look what happened there. If this continues then there is a very real danger that, ultimately, we don't even get to know about these brave souls!

It is one thing to believe in science; another to believe in scientists. Most scientists spend their lives looking for funding not the truth. It is far more dangerous to your career to be right in the minority than wrong with the majority.

This does not mean that they are always wrong, but we should not automatically trust them.

Don't know where the guy below worked.

Mr Hitchens, you need to spend some time with real scientists and listen to them rather than indulge in idle speculation about state conspiracies. Most scientists are hard-working, independent, dedicated individuals who are paid little and get little public recognition. Most perform careful and disciplined research in the hope that they will contribute something of real value to society (I'm not kidding, they are like that, I used to work amongst them).

Allowing ill-informed parents/patients to choose their treatment may sound like democracy but it's not good medicine or good science.
There is no evidence of a link between MMR and autism. The stories which appear to suggest there is are akin to "my Gran smoked 40 fags a day and lived to be 90 - so smoking must be good for you!"

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned here is the fact that one of the contributing factors to the doubt over the safety of MMR was that Tony Blair refused to confirm whether his own son had been given it. There was a rumour that his son had single jabs in France, I seem to recall. If a Government is telling its electorate that something is safe, you'd expect the Head of the Government to support the policy, or explain why not. The fact that he didn't, or wouldn't be drawn on whether or not he did made me think long and hard that he had doubts, so why shouldn't I?

But, as per the Global Warming (non) Debate Scientists increasingly have to provide the right answer in order to get state funding, at which point any sensible questioning is closed down and non conformists are labelled as flat earthers.

"However, to those who choose not to vacinate their children I ask this, would you rather an autistic child or a dead one?
Why would someone not vacinate against a potentially fatal disease?"

Talk about hysteria. The choice isn't between having an autistic child or a dead one. Many millions of people over the years have caught and got over measles, mumps and rubella. For the vast majority of people it is a minor hiccup in life. The ones who may die are those who have an already compromised immune system. The case in England of a child dying of measles, which Peter Hitchens talks about, if it's the same one which happened a couple of years ago, involved a boy who was already severely ill and the measles on top of that was too much for him. Unfortunately the papers like to whip up the hysteria when a child dies of measles, but they don't like to give the full details. And also the fact that so many of the children who do catch measles, mumps, etc in an 'epidemic' have been previously vaccinated.

Nic Clarke - from my understanding mumps will only (and then rarely) cause infertility if caught by an adult male. For the vast majority of children who catch it there are no lasting effects - except natural, lifelong immunity. Something which cannot be said for vaccinations, which is why there have been a lot of cases of people in their teens needing a "top-up". It is far, far better for a child's immune system to naturally catch childhood diseases. Childhood diseases if caught by an adult are often far more dangerous in an adult. For instance, chickenpox in a child is usually uncomfortable, pretty unsightly for a while, but not harmful. It can kill an adult.

I have no doubt at all that Heather Edwards, and others like her whose children have had similar experiences have a genuine belief that the MMR caused their child's autism. They are not making it up. Why would they?

I have a child with autism. I do not know if the MMR caused it, though our doctor who is a consultant paediatric pshycologist and expert in autism believes that it may have been a contributory factor, but she would have had the MMR booster only over my dead body. Our doctor also regards the evidence on which the Government relies in arguing that there is no link as "rubbish".

The point which Peter Hitchens makes is right, and it is a point I have heard Wakefield make. The rights of the individual are being placed behind that of the herd in a way that may seem ok if your child is fine but is not at all ok if you are Heather Edwards.

I recognise what a difficult issue this is for the Government but they should allow people to choose single vaccines if that is what they prefer (better to have single jabs than nothing at all, right?) and should stop putting out misleading, rubbish propaganda which is likely to be proved wrong one day.

The authorities behave like responsible custodians of a herd of cattle; they forget that they are servants not masters. They are probably right that MMR does not cause autism, but they deny the right of responsible parents to distrust them, by making it difficult to get separate vaccinations. In the name of 'social justice', i.e. equality of privilege, they think it unfair that prosperous people here should be able to buy what they think is better health care than is available free, although they cannot stop people going abroad (yet). Their excuse that if vaccinations were separate children might not get all three is implausible; these are parents who care.

Firstly the reason single jabs are now allowed on the NHS, thank the Labour government who stripped us of the legal right to choose between equally effective treatments, if you want somone to blame for that thank them. There is a cost issue, it costs considerably more to provide indivdual jabs and so our cash strapped NHS can't afford them, after all the doctors need to make £100,000 a year - otherwise it wouldn't be fair after all they do have a degree (meanwhile I make £30,000 a year and have three degrees).

However, to those who choose not to vacinate their children I ask this, would you rather an autistic child or a dead one?
Why would someone not vacinate against a potentially fatal desease?

Personally, after reading through the research so far I have yet to be convinced that MMR causes autism, in fact I conclude that no evidence exists to confirm this.

Expecting the normal retorts I mention this, I have an autistic son, all of my children have had the full course of recomended vacinations, my sons autism was not caused by MMR, and I have never read any study which would force me to change my mind, if anyone can provide me with any information please do, but until then I suggest poeple actually read the science and not the headlines.

Science works by continual questioning and testing of ideas. Wakefield asked a question, many other scientists tested it, in many studies, and the consensus is that MMR does not cause autism. For example, in Japan, the MMR vaccine was withdrawn in 1993, yet autism rates there have risen significantly since - exactly the opposite of what one would expect if MMR causes autism. It seems that the rise in the diagnosis of autism has another cause or causes. We should not be wasting resources flogging a dead horse down a blind alley.

Those peddling the lie that MMR is responsible for ASD are guilty of deceiving, and in many cases cynically exploiting, the many parents who, quite rightly, want to know why their children have this condition.

Mr Hitchens, you need to spend some time with real scientists and listen to them rather than indulge in idle speculation about state conspiracies. Most scientists are hard-working, independent, dedicated individuals who are paid little and get little public recognition. Most perform careful and disciplined research in the hope that they will contribute something of real value to society (I'm not kidding, they are like that, I used to work amongst them). Those scientists would soon tell you how exasperated they get with sloppy scientists and the undue prominence they are given in the media.
Wakefield is not up before the GMC for speculating about a link between MMR and autism, his charge is to do with overstepping the mark in his dealings with patients. The GMC deal with cases like his all the time - Wakefield is not being picked on specifically.
You are right that measles rarely kills people in the UK but it kills around a million people in the rest of the world every year. In this country, it can cause encephalitis (which can cause brain damage and deafness) and it also causes miscarriage. These are hard facts - proven links not scare stories. There is no such hard evidence for the MMR/autism link - that IS a scare story and you risk harming the health of this country by perpetuating it.

Anyone have any thoughts on the large rise in mumps in Coventry where mmr vaccination has decreased significantly? Maybe some kids have been 'saved' from autism, but how many have been condemned to infertility or worse by these actions?

As a father of two Autistic sons both injected with mercury on behalf of the state, my question is a simple one.
Tell me what did cause my sons' Autism.
For what it is worth my wife's uncle who we recently met is possibly autistic and I believe the mercury injected and affecting the body as a whole has acted as a trigger and a gene that was regressive has instead become dominant.
Who will tell me the truth?

My son is 2 1/2 and has just received a diagnosis of severe autism. He didn't have the MMR, but did have dpt hib at 8 weeks, and again at 12 weeks. I ask myself now, why did I twice inject him with 7 live viruses at such a young age? I was encouraged and cajoled by the health visitor and the gp surgery nurse. My son became so ill that he didn't have his 3rd round of dpt hib, or his MMR, or his flu shot (This would have taken him up to nearly 30 viruses before the age of 2)
Who knows how much worse he could be? What i do know is that he has inflammation of the bowel, poor liver and kidney function, allergies, vitamin deficiencies - and oh yes, mercury, pcb and lead poisoning... Why? Let's stop "investigating" the likes of Andy Wakefiled and start investigating the kids!!!

Thank you for your article in the mail on sundy
on Sunday, (15/7/07)
We believe our son was damaged by the MMR vaccine he was given at 15 months old. It's not a matter of blame, we just want a proper investigation into this vaccine before more families are put through what we've been through.
We are not anti-vaccine, we just want parents to get all the facts before making a decision that could affect the life of your child and all the family.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.